********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
In the Matter of )
)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company )
Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA )
Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local ) File No. NSD-LM-97-32
Calling Service (ELCS) at Various Locations )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: December 3, 1997 Released: December 3, 1997
By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On September 29, 1997, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT), pursuant
to Section 3(25) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, filed 64 petitions to provide two-
way, non-optional, expanded local calling service (ELCS) between various exchanges in Texas.
Each of SWBT's petitions requests a limited modification of local access transport area (LATA)
boundaries. The petitions were placed on public notice and no comments or replies were filed.
For the reasons stated below, we grant SWBT's 64 ELCS requests.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Requests for new ELCS routes are generally initiated by local subscribers.
IntraLATA ELCS routes can be ordered by the state commission. For interLATA routes, prior to
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), the BOCs were required to secure state approval
and then obtain a waiver from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (District
Court). In the years between the Consent Decree and the 1996 Act, the District Court received
more than a hundred requests for Consent Decree waivers to permit new interLATA ELCS routes.
Because of the large number of requests involved and because most of the requests were non-
controversial, the District Court developed a streamlined process for handling such requests.
3. Under the streamlined process developed by the District Court, the BOC submitted
its waiver request to the Department of Justice (Department). The Department reviewed the request
and then submitted the request, along with the Department's recommendation, to the District Court.
In evaluating ELCS requests, the Department and the District Court considered the number of
customers or access lines involved as well as whether a sufficiently strong community of interest
between the exchanges justified granting a waiver of the Consent Decree. A community of interest
could be demonstrated by such evidence as: (1) poll results showing that customers in the affected
exchange were willing to pay higher rates to be included in an expanded local calling area; (2)
usage data demonstrating a high level of calling between the exchanges; and (3) narrative statements
describing how the two exchanges were part of one community and how the lack of local calling
between the exchanges caused problems for community residents. In addition, the Department and
the District Court gave deference to the state's community of interest finding. The District Court
also considered the competitive effects of granting a proposed ELCS waiver.
4. Matters previously subject to the Consent Decree are now governed by the Act.
Under section 3(25)(B) of the Act, BOCs may modify LATA boundaries, if such modifications are
approved by the Commission. On July 15, 1997, the Commission released a decision granting 23
requests for limited boundary modification to permit ELCS. Although calls between the ELCS
exchanges would now be treated as intraLATA, each ELCS exchange would remain assigned to the
same LATA for purposes of classifying all other calls. The Commission stated that it would grant
requests for such limited modifications only where a petitioning BOC showed that the ELCS was
a flat-rated, non-optional service, a significant community of interest existed among the affected
exchanges, and grant of the requested waiver would not have any anticompetitive effects. The
Commission stated further that a carrier would be deemed to have made a prima facie case
supporting grant of the proposed modification if the ELCS petition: (1) has been approved by the
state commission; (2) proposes only traditional local service (i.e., flat-rated, non-optional ELCS);
(3) indicates that the state commission found a sufficient community of interest to warrant such
service; (4) documents this community of interest through such evidence as poll results, usage data,
and descriptions of the communities involved; and (5) involves a limited number of customers or
access lines.
III. DISCUSSION
5. Each of SWBT's 64 ELCS petitions proposes to establish a flat-rated, two-way, non-
optional ELCS. Each request is accompanied by: (1) an order confirming state approval of the
limited LATA modification requested; (2) a statement that only traditional local service is proposed;
(3) a community of interest finding by the Public Utility Commission of Texas; (4) the results from
subscriber polls documenting a community of interest; and (5) a statement of the number of access
lines involved. The petitions do not provide usage data in the form of an average number of calls
per access line per month between the respective exchanges, nor the percentage of subscribers
making such calls. The brief descriptions of the basis for the requested ELCS reveal that many
community services (such as hospitals, doctors offices, schools, stores, public transportation
facilities, and government offices) are located in a nearby community in the adjacent LATA, and that
making interLATA toll calls for such services generates significant expenses for residents.
6. As we stated in the July 1997 Order, granting an ELCS petition removes the proposed
route from the competitive interexchange market. Some LATA modifications could reduce the
incentive created by Section 271 of the Act for BOCs to open their local exchange and exchange
access markets to competition. Given, however, the small number of access lines involved in each
of the proposed ELCS areas in these petitions, as well as the type of service to be offered (i.e., flat-
rated, non-optional local service), we find that the proposed LATA modifications will not have a
significant anticompetitive effect on the interexchange market or on SWBT's incentive to open its
local exchange and exchange access markets to competition.
IV. CONCLUSION
7. We conclude that, in each of the 64 requests, the community's need for the proposed
ELCS routes outweighs the risk of potential anticompetitive effects. Granting SWBT's petitions
serves the public interest by permitting minor LATA modifications in cases where such
modifications are necessary to meet the needs of local subscribers and will not have any significant
effect on competition. Accordingly, we approve SWBT's 64 petitions for limited LATA
modifications in order to provide flat-rated, non-optional ELCS. These LATAs are modified solely
for the limited purpose of allowing SWBT to provide flat-rated, non-optional local calling service
between the specific exchanges or geographic areas identified in the requests. In each case, the
LATA is not modified to permit the BOC to offer any other type of service, including calls that
originate or terminate outside the specified areas. Thus, flat-rated, non-optional ELCS between the
specified exchanges will be treated as intraLATA, and the provisions of the Act governing
intraLATA service will apply. Other types of service between the specified exchanges will remain
interLATA, and the provisions of the Act governing interLATA service will apply.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 153(25), 154(i), and 47 C.F.R. 0.91 and
0.291 of the Commission's rules, that the requests of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company for
LATA modifications for the limited purpose of providing flat-rated, non-optional ELCS at specific
locations, identified in File No. NSD-LM-97-32, ARE APPROVED to the extent described above.
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 416(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
416(a), the Secretary SHALL SERVE a copy of this order upon the petitioner, Southwestern Bell
Telephone Company.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
A. Richard Metzger, Jr.
Chief, Common Carrier Bureau APPENDIX A
List of Petitions and LATA Modification Requests
The following chart shows, for each petition, the number of access lines involved and the percentage
of consumers returning ballots in favor of ELCS.
PETITION
ACCESS LINES
CONSUMER SUPPORT
Alba of Contel/ Mineola of SWBT.
Alba 1,231
Mineola 5,385
Alba 81.7%
Annona of Contel-GTE
Southwest,Inc./Paris of SWBT.
Annona 332
Paris 22,541
Annona 87.8 %
Bellvue of SWBT/ Decatur of Sprint-
United-Centel Telephone.
Bellvue 465
Decatur 5,691
Bellvue 77.69%
Ben Wheeler of Contel -GTE Southwest,
Inc./ Tyler of SWBT.
Ben Wheeler 736
Tyler 76,784
Ben Wheeler 70%
Blessing of Contel-GTE Southwest, Inc./
Bay City of SWBT.
Blessing 1,073
Bay City 13,678
Blessing 81%
Bogata of Contel-GTE Southwest,
Inc./Mount Pleasant of SWBT.
Bogata 1,549
Mount Pleasant 1,194
Bogata 88.5 %
Bowie of SWBT/Decatur of Sprint-
United-Contel and Sunset of S-U-C.
Bowie 5,060
Decatur 5,691
Sunset 375
Bowie 72.76 %
Decatur 70.48 %
Bremond of Sprint-United-
Centel/Calvert and Hearne of SWBT.
Bremond 973
Calvert 836
Hearne 4,021
Bremond 88.17%
Calvert 89.58%
Bronte of Contel-GTE Southwest,Inc./
Abilene of SWBT.
Bronte 685
Abilene 69,688
Bronte 95.18%
Canton of Contel-GTE
Southwest,Inc./Tyler of SWBT.
Canton 4,020
Tyler 76,784
Canton 70%
Chester of Eastex Telephone Co./
Woodville of SWBT.
Chester 419
Woodville 4,506
Chester 86.2%
Chico of Sprint -United-Centel
Telephone/Bowie of SWBT.
Chico 1,425
Bowie 5,060
Chico 70%
Clarksville of Contel -GTE
Southwest,Inc./ Paris of SWBT.
Clarksville 2,954
Paris 22,541
Clarksville 77.3%
Cross Plains of Contel-GTE
Southwest,Inc./ Abilene of SWBT.
Cross Plains 1,264
Abilene 69,688
Cross Plains 84.60%
Dawson of Contel-GTE Southwest,Inc./
Corsicana of SWBT.
Dawson 822
Corsicana 15,433
Dawson 87.7%
Dodson of Contel-GTE Southwest,Inc./
Childress of SWBT.
Dodson 93
Childress 7,391
Dodson 76.74%
Edom-Brownsboro of Sprint-United-
Centel Telephone/Mineola, Lindale-
Swan, Tyler, and Owentown of SWBT.
Edom-Brownsboro 2,776
Mineola 5,385
Lindale-Swan 7,315
Tyler 76,784
Owentown 2,100
Edom-Brownsboro
to Mineola 85%
to Lindale-Swan 87.9%
to Tyler 97.6%
to Owentown 84.3%
Flat of Sprint-United-Centel/Belton and
Temple of SWBT.
Flat 179
Belton 10,722
Temple 34,589
Flat
to Belton 75.41%
to Temple 84.62%
Forestburg of Muenster
Telephone/Bowie of SWBT.
Forestburg 400
Bowie 5,060
Forestburg 82.40%
Frankston of Sprint-United-Centel
Telephone/Tyler of SWBT.
Frankston 3,033
Tyler 76,784
Frankston 90%
Frentress of Contel-GTE
Southwest/Luling of SWBT.
Frentress 438
Luling 3,262
Frentress 90%
Frost of Contel-GTE Southwest, Inc./
Hillsboro of SWBT.
Frost 414
Hillsboro 6,094
Frost 70%
Gatesville of Sprint-United-Central
Telephone/Temple of SWBT.
Gatesville 6,110
Temple 34,589
Gatesville 83.94%
Grand Saline of Contel-GTE
Southwest,Inc./Tyler of SWBT.
Grand Saline 2,413
Tyler 76,784
Grand Saline 81.4%
Hamlin of SWBT/ Aspermont, Rule, and
Haskell of Contel-GTE Southwest,Inc.
Hamlin 1,447
Aspermont 837
Rule 502
Haskell 2,193
Hamlin
to Aspermont 84.9%
to Rule 80.4%
to Haskell 82.9%
Hankamer of ALLTEL/ Dayton and
Liberty of SWBT.
Hankamer 405
Dayton 6,969
Liberty 6,348
Hankamer
to Dayton 95.67%
to Liberty 96.91%
Haskell of Contel-GTE Southwest, Inc./
Abilene of SWBT.
Haskell 2,193
Abilene 69,688
Haskell 90.64%
Hubbard of Contel-GTE Southwest,Inc./
Corsicana of SWBT.
Hubbard 1,001
Corsicana 15,433
Hubbard 75.7%
Irene of Contel-GTE Southwest,Inc./
Corsicana of SWBT.
Irene 373
Corsican 15,433
Irene 70%
Itasca of SWBT/ Cleburne of SWBT,
Covington and Grandview of Texas
ALLTEL.
Itasca 901
Cleburne 23, 196
Covington 572
Grandview 1,417
Itasca
to Cleburne 77.42%
to Covington 73.94%
to Grandview 75.68%
Jarrell of Contel-GTE Southwest,Inc./
Bartlett of SWBT.
Jarrell 785
Bartlett 1,180
Jarrell 86%
Jarrell of Contel-GTE Southwest, Inc./
Belton and Temple of SWBT.
Jarrell 785
Belton 10,722
Temple 34,589
Jarrell
to Belton 70%
to Temple 70%
Kopperl of Texas ALLTEL/Meridian of
SWBT.
Kopperl 340
Meridian 1,198
Kopperl 70%
Lakeside Village of Alltel/Meridian of
SWBT.
Lakeside Village 347
Meridian 1,198
Lakeside Village 84.56%
Leona of Contel-GTE Southwest, Inc./
Huntsville and Madisonville of SWBT.
Leona 445
Huntsville 21,892
Madisonville 4,209
Leona
to Huntsville 80.7%
to Madisonville 87.3%
Madisonville of SWBT/Bryan-College
Station of Contel-GTE Southwest,Inc.
Madisonville 4,209
Bryan-College Station 32,050
Madisonville 70%
Milford of Contel-GTE Southwest,Inc./
Hillsboro of SWBT.
Milford 388
Hillsboro 6,094
Milford 84.20%
Mineola of SWBT/Grand Saline of
Contel-GTE Southwest, Inc.
Mineola 5,385
Grand Saline 2,413
Mineola 79%
Montalba of Sprint-United-Centel
Telephone/Tyler of SWBT.
Montalba 1,212
Tyler 76,784
Montalba 81.2%
Moran of Contel-GTE Southwest, Inc./
Breckenridge and Cisco of SWBT.
Moran 247
Breckenridge 5,238
Cisco 2,568
Moran
to Breckenridge 74.14%
to Cisco 70.59%
Morgan of Contel-GTE Southwest, Inc./
Meridian of SWBT.
Morgan 287
Meridian 1,198
Morgan 76.70%
Mount Vernon of Contel-GTE
Southwest, Inc./Paris of SWBT.
Mount Vernon 2,048
Paris 22,541
Mount Vernon 71.41%
Murchison of Sprint-United-Centel
Telephone/Lindale-Swan and Tyler of
SWBT.
Murchison 1,216
Lindale-Swan 7,315
Tyler 76,784
Murchison
to Lindale-Swan 72.9%
to Tyler 90.5%
Neches of Sprint-United-Central
Telephone/Tyler of SWBT.
Neches 539
Tyler 76,784
Neches 83.56%
Nordheim of SWBT/Kennedy of SWBT.
Nordheim 366
Kennedy 2,376
Nordheim 70%
Oakland of Contel-GTE
Southwest,Inc./Tyler of SWBT.
Oakland 578
Tyler 76,784
Oakland 70%
Pineland of Contel-GTE Southwest,
Inc./Nacogdoches and San Augustine of
SWBT.
Pineland 1,461
Nacogdoches 27, 171
San Augustine 3, 715
Pineland
to Nacogdoches 71.69%
to San Augustine 73.33%
Pettus of Sprint-United-Centel
Telephone/Karnes City-Falls City and
Kenedy of SWBT.
Pettus 693
Karnes City-Falls City 2,542
Kenedy 2,376
Pettus
to Karnes City
-Falls City 87.20%
to Kenedy 89.9%
Putnam of Contel-GTE
Southwest,Inc./Cisco of SWBT.
Putnam 111
Cisco 2,568
Putnam 93%
Reklaw of Contel-GTE Southwest,
Inc./Tyler of SWBT.
Reklaw 189
Tyler 76,784
Reklaw 87.85%
Richland of Contel-GTE Southwest,
Inc./Wortham and Mexia of SWBT.
Richland 210
Wortham 647
Mexia 5,194
Richland
to Wortham 96%
to Mexia 98%
Seagraves of Contel-GTE Southwest,
Inc./Seminole of SWBT.
Seagraves 1,009
Seminole 4,537
Seagraves 84.48%
Sterling City of Contel-GTE
Southwest,Inc./Big Spring and Colorado
City of SWBT.
Sterling City 768
Big Spring 14,851
Colorado City 3,460
Sterling
to Big Spring 88.92%
to Colorado City 83.09%
Streetman of Contel-GTE
Southwest,Inc./ Wortham and Mexia of
SWBT.
Streetman 709
Wortham 647
Mexia 5,194
Streetman
to Wortham 70%
to Mexia 70%
Sunset of Sprint-United-Centel
Telephone/Bowie of SWBT.
Sunset 375
Bowie 5,060
Sunset 87.8%
Teague of SWBT/Fairfield of Contel-
GTE SWBT,Inc.
Teague 2,280
Fairfield 4,427
Teague 70%
Tenaha of Contel/GTE Southwest,Inc./
Carthage of SWBT.
Tenaha 1,056
Carthage 7,720
Tenaha 85.07%
Troup of Sprint-United-Centel
Telephone/Tyler of SWBT.
Troup 2,284
Tyler 76, 784
Troup 83.20%
Tulia of Contel-GTE Southwest,Inc./
Amarillo and Canyon of SWBT.
Tula 2,495
Amarillo 114,035
Canyon 7,717
Tulia
to Amarillo 81.34%
to Canyon 76.58%
Wallisville of ALLTEL/Dayton and
Liberty of SWBT.
Wallisville 349
Dayton 6,969
Liberty 6,348
Wallisville
to Dayton 95.77%
to Liberty 96.3%
Walnut Springs of Contel-GTE
Southwest,Inc./ Meridian of SWBT.
Walnut Springs 513
Meridian 1,198
Walnut 86.45%
Weimar of Contel-GTE Southwest,Inc./
Columbus of SWBT.
Weimar 1,461
Columbus 4,620
Weimar 73.43%
Wortham of SWBT/Fairfield and
Streetman of Contel-Southwest,Inc.
Wortham 647
Fairfield 4,427
Streetman 709
Wortham
to Fairfield 84.21%
to Streetman 79.87%
Yorktown of SWBT/Kenedy and Runge
of SWBT.
Yorktown 2,045
Kenedy 2,376
Runge 571
Yorktown
to Kenedy 70%
to Runge 70%